2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film addresses the horrifying practice of mountain top removal, specifically in West Virginia, and the affects it has on the local communities. The coal industry is exploiting the land and people of West Virginia and the film is meant to shed light on the situation.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film discusses how coal mining, especially mountain top removal, is a node on the matrix. Mining used to be a large source of jobs for the people. Now that the coal companies are replacing the people and using more machinery to completely remove the sides of mountains. Now the locals do not like the mining industry. The people in the communities surrounding the mining sites have serious health issues including asthma, and many are dying from cancers.
Another issue pointed out is how government and local zoning laws can have negative effects on the environment. One coal company wanted to open another mining site across form a current site on the other side of a small stream. The company was sued for violating certain buffer zone laws. The new mine would be too close to the stream and clog it up, killing many species that live in the stream and poisoning the water supply. After winning the first case and saving the stream, those trying to battle the company were brought to court again when the coal company appealed the case to a court that is known for favoring the coal industry. The coal company won.
Government also got in the way of environmental protection in the form of the governors and senators of West Virginia. For example, the West Virginia Senator, Jay Rockefeller, ran for governor in 1972. He was known for wanting to get rid of strip mining in the area. He lost the race. In 1974 he changed his position on the matter because the thought that his stance had lost him the race. Ever since, he has been a supporter of the coal industry. This clearly indicates how politicians are a sustainability issue.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very impressed by the footage of the forum with the coal company and the local people who were fed up with the effects of having the mining industry in their town. I was particularly compelled by one young man who made a very good point. It was encouraging to see that the people are not being brainwashed by the companies and are very aware of what the real situation is. He said that the local people’s only options for jobs are mining and flipping burgers. And that is exactly how the coal companies want it to be. People see mining as a better option to the alternative so that is what they do. This is the only way the coal companies can actually get support for what they do to the people and to the environment. The people have to choose between providing for their families and harming the environment.
I also found Judy Bond to be compelling. Not because she was an activist trying to stop mountain top removal, but because of the segment when she was discussing the backlash she has witnessed and encountered due to her actions. She has had to set up security cameras on her house and has dogs to protect her from the possibility of someone coming to cause trouble. She has gotten threats to her life and to the wellbeing of her family. In addition, she said she has a gun ready in case someone does come to her house looking for trouble. She said that she had no other option. This is yet another sustainability problem that the film points out; violence is a very real possibility when people really care about an issue and feel desperate.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not at all convinced by the reclamation attempts made by the coal companies after leaving a mining site. They say they plant grass and native tress but how could this practice possibly work if all the top soil is gone? In addition, all the biodiversity that once existed is no longer there. You can’t replace thousands of years of growth and diversity by planting a few trees and leaving. In fact, many times these reclamation sites fail after only a few years.
I was also not convinced by the information about clean coal. Coal is not a clean resource. Even if there was a way to use coal in a more responsible way, we would still have to extract the coal from the mountains and mountain top removal would still be implemented along with all of the negative impacts of the practice.
6. What audience does this film best address? Why?
The audience that this film addresses best is the group of people that do not realize mountain top removal is happening. It is meant to shed light on these small communities that are hurting so badly due to the coal industry’s practices. Because the film did not touch too heavily on why coal consumption is so bad for us and the environment, it is probably geared toward a slightly more environmentally informed audience.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
There were a few things that I feel could have been added to the film to enhance its educational value. It did not discuss what is actually released into the atmosphere when mountain tops are blown up and pushed over the edge of the mountain. It focused on how the practice was affecting the local community but how does it affect the rest of us? Do the gasses that are released get blown to other areas and cause environmental and health problems there?
I also would have liked for the film to go into further detail about why coal use is so bad anyway. It did give some suggestions that would help switch to other fuel sources but it assumed the viewer knew about the impact of our use of coal. For it to enhance its educational impact it could have expanded on some of the matrix that involves our coal consumption.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested in the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action that you can imagine being effective?
Some of the solutions the film suggests include becoming more energy efficient, using renewable energy sources such as bio-fuels and geothermal and solar energies. It also suggested that instead of blowing up these mountains in West Virginia, perhaps we could install wind turbines on them instead. We could still be getting energy from these locations but instead of destroying the environment, we would be protecting it.
9. What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out? (Two supporting references)
I wanted to find out more about the laws and regulations associated with reclamation. It was difficult to find unbiased information about reclamation but the site below does do a good job. http://auroralights.org/map_project/theme.php?theme=mtr&article=20
The film discussed “clean coal,” which I am unconvinced by. It suggested visiting the link below. It seems to me like just another industry website meant to gloss over criticism of its practices. The coal company sees the trends toward clean energy and this is one of its attempts to show the world that coal should still be a viable option. http://www.americaspower.org/
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film addresses the horrifying practice of mountain top removal, specifically in West Virginia, and the affects it has on the local communities. The coal industry is exploiting the land and people of West Virginia and the film is meant to shed light on the situation.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film discusses how coal mining, especially mountain top removal, is a node on the matrix. Mining used to be a large source of jobs for the people. Now that the coal companies are replacing the people and using more machinery to completely remove the sides of mountains. Now the locals do not like the mining industry. The people in the communities surrounding the mining sites have serious health issues including asthma, and many are dying from cancers.
Another issue pointed out is how government and local zoning laws can have negative effects on the environment. One coal company wanted to open another mining site across form a current site on the other side of a small stream. The company was sued for violating certain buffer zone laws. The new mine would be too close to the stream and clog it up, killing many species that live in the stream and poisoning the water supply. After winning the first case and saving the stream, those trying to battle the company were brought to court again when the coal company appealed the case to a court that is known for favoring the coal industry. The coal company won.
Government also got in the way of environmental protection in the form of the governors and senators of West Virginia. For example, the West Virginia Senator, Jay Rockefeller, ran for governor in 1972. He was known for wanting to get rid of strip mining in the area. He lost the race. In 1974 he changed his position on the matter because the thought that his stance had lost him the race. Ever since, he has been a supporter of the coal industry. This clearly indicates how politicians are a sustainability issue.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was very impressed by the footage of the forum with the coal company and the local people who were fed up with the effects of having the mining industry in their town. I was particularly compelled by one young man who made a very good point. It was encouraging to see that the people are not being brainwashed by the companies and are very aware of what the real situation is. He said that the local people’s only options for jobs are mining and flipping burgers. And that is exactly how the coal companies want it to be. People see mining as a better option to the alternative so that is what they do. This is the only way the coal companies can actually get support for what they do to the people and to the environment. The people have to choose between providing for their families and harming the environment.
I also found Judy Bond to be compelling. Not because she was an activist trying to stop mountain top removal, but because of the segment when she was discussing the backlash she has witnessed and encountered due to her actions. She has had to set up security cameras on her house and has dogs to protect her from the possibility of someone coming to cause trouble. She has gotten threats to her life and to the wellbeing of her family. In addition, she said she has a gun ready in case someone does come to her house looking for trouble. She said that she had no other option. This is yet another sustainability problem that the film points out; violence is a very real possibility when people really care about an issue and feel desperate.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not at all convinced by the reclamation attempts made by the coal companies after leaving a mining site. They say they plant grass and native tress but how could this practice possibly work if all the top soil is gone? In addition, all the biodiversity that once existed is no longer there. You can’t replace thousands of years of growth and diversity by planting a few trees and leaving. In fact, many times these reclamation sites fail after only a few years.
I was also not convinced by the information about clean coal. Coal is not a clean resource. Even if there was a way to use coal in a more responsible way, we would still have to extract the coal from the mountains and mountain top removal would still be implemented along with all of the negative impacts of the practice.
6. What audience does this film best address? Why?
The audience that this film addresses best is the group of people that do not realize mountain top removal is happening. It is meant to shed light on these small communities that are hurting so badly due to the coal industry’s practices. Because the film did not touch too heavily on why coal consumption is so bad for us and the environment, it is probably geared toward a slightly more environmentally informed audience.
7. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
There were a few things that I feel could have been added to the film to enhance its educational value. It did not discuss what is actually released into the atmosphere when mountain tops are blown up and pushed over the edge of the mountain. It focused on how the practice was affecting the local community but how does it affect the rest of us? Do the gasses that are released get blown to other areas and cause environmental and health problems there?
I also would have liked for the film to go into further detail about why coal use is so bad anyway. It did give some suggestions that would help switch to other fuel sources but it assumed the viewer knew about the impact of our use of coal. For it to enhance its educational impact it could have expanded on some of the matrix that involves our coal consumption.
8. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested in the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action that you can imagine being effective?
Some of the solutions the film suggests include becoming more energy efficient, using renewable energy sources such as bio-fuels and geothermal and solar energies. It also suggested that instead of blowing up these mountains in West Virginia, perhaps we could install wind turbines on them instead. We could still be getting energy from these locations but instead of destroying the environment, we would be protecting it.
9. What additional information has the film compelled you to seek out? (Two supporting references)
I wanted to find out more about the laws and regulations associated with reclamation. It was difficult to find unbiased information about reclamation but the site below does do a good job.
http://auroralights.org/map_project/theme.php?theme=mtr&article=20
The film discussed “clean coal,” which I am unconvinced by. It suggested visiting the link below. It seems to me like just another industry website meant to gloss over criticism of its practices. The coal company sees the trends toward clean energy and this is one of its attempts to show the world that coal should still be a viable option.
http://www.americaspower.org/